1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




Slavery

Home Forums Research Law and Politics Slavery

This topic contains 60 replies, has 21 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of chadsims chadsims 3 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 61 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11472
    Profile photo of OceanPhoenix
    OceanPhoenix
    Participant

    Let’s not forget Comrade Conkergrave, Nuts-in-cheeks’ “faithful” advisor who is secretly conspiring to return the country to the lead of the miserly but influential Bushytail, which he will benefit greatly from in the ways of power.

    I think it was about slavery, but, you know, there’s no way to be sure… oh wait…

    “Fortis cadere, cedere non potest”

    “A brave man may fall, but he cannot yield”

    -Latin Proverb

    #11501
    Profile photo of Sov
    Sov
    Participant

    What about voluntary contractual slavery, e.g., involving BDSM? I’ve actually seen self-styled anarchists and libertarians who support criminalizing it. More than once I’ve seen seen the phrase “anarchist police” used in conjunction with this sentiment.

    I’m all for freedom from faith-based authority, but not paradoxically forcing everyone to meet one ideal of “freedom.”

    #11515
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    I haven’t read the whole thread, so I might be redundant here. Apologies if this is the case.

    Voluntary contractual slavery (I just learned the word “peonage”) faces the usual criticism of knowledge problems and poor enforcement, but opponents often fail to control for places where knowledge is a problem and contract enforcement is weak. More advanced governments tend not to have contractual slavery, except for in the case of internships, which recently have been quite popular as ways to hire people at $0.00/hour for short-term periods and zero benefits to avoid making it look like human trafficking. Seems to me that allowing the parties to extend the contract into eternity with some non-monetary benefits or until condition X is met would be more secure, and may even result in some bargaining. Most college kids these days would go for it.

    Eric Jacobus
    Office Manager / Communications Coordinator
    The Seasteading Institute

    #11626
    Profile photo of DrMandible
    DrMandible
    Participant

    There is an oxymoron plaguing this board that slavery will be combated by benevolent states. Consider the following two problems with this assertion.

    First, state’s turn a blind eye to countless injustices. (Rwanda and Darfur slaughters; inhuman living conditions in Africa, Haiti, parts of Latin America; record imprisonment in the USA; unchecked military aggression conducted by states themselves; etc.) There is no reason to believe a state will use its valuable military to enforce human rights on a floating island.

    Second, even if a state wanted to intervene in the affairs of a seastead, is that wanted? Certainly, slavery is abhorrent and should be stopped by any means necessary. But are seasteaders so fragile that even the most basic of human rights need to be imposed by other states? Is that not an infringement of the sovereignty of a seasteader colony tantamount to an act of war?

    If we want to assure the proper observation of human rights, it should be mandatory that these colonies accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ and actively seek to participate in the international community.


    #11635
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    I have to agree with Ocean Phoenix that it isn’t slavery if it is voluntary. Though I have to disagree with the government part. I dont see why a government is needed. But in the end I suppose a voluntary direct democracy would be best. Though democracy is flawed is many ways….

    “Nothing is more to me then myself” – Max Stirner

    #11644
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    DrMandible wrote:

    There is an oxymoron plaguing this board that slavery will be combated by benevolent states. Consider the following two problems with this assertion.

    First, state’s turn a blind eye to countless injustices. (Rwanda and Darfur slaughters; inhuman living conditions in Africa, Haiti, parts of Latin America; record imprisonment in the USA; unchecked military aggression conducted by states themselves; etc.) There is no reason to believe a state will use its valuable military to enforce human rights on a floating island.

    Second, even if a state wanted to intervene in the affairs of a seastead, is that wanted? Certainly, slavery is abhorrent and should be stopped by any means necessary. But are seasteaders so fragile that even the most basic of human rights need to be imposed by other states? Is that not an infringement of the sovereignty of a seasteader colony tantamount to an act of war?

    If we want to assure the proper observation of human rights, it should be mandatory that these colonies accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ and actively seek to participate in the international community.

    Mandatory? In exchange for what? Under threat of what?

    I know this is hard for people who bought in to the Matrix their entire lives to understand but this isn’t a retirement home. It isn’t a corporation, a village, or even a state.

    It’s international waters. The only circumstance where “problems” like slavery even exist are outside the jurisdiction of any mandate.

    The idea of someone with the firepower to back any sort of “mandate” on the high seas pre-occupying themselves with something as mooshy as human rights is laughable, let alone being naive enough to assume that this is somehow a new problem limited in scope to seasteads.

    Fuck it: let’s dig in shall we?

    What type of slavery are we talking about? Chattel slavery?

    That’s what comes to everyone’s minds isn’t it? (Nevermind it has been the exception in history rather than the rule.)

    So here we are: crab fishing in the north pacific on our survivalist houseboat, and we decide to buy a hooker off some gang bangers in Thailand. So we pick up some hard drugs in mexico, drop em off the coast of california in a crab pot, and take our loot and fuck off over to Thailand. We go to the red light district, find a pimp, and buy our hooker. Now what?

    Cool: We’re slave owners.

    Our we going to put our hooker to work in the cotton fields on the deck of our boat? Make them sleep on the lower bunk? Force them to cook dinner?

    Where does the “Terrible Transformation” come in to play? Where is the “Middle Passage” in this situation?

    What about these living conditions is so terrible that we condemn 3 meals a day in exchange for domestic work while turning a blind eye to clothing factories paying $10 a month for 60 hour weeks with no safety regulations or unions to speak of?

    I propose the economics of seasteading don’t even begin to support chattel slavery. Any other form of slavery is an improvement in living conditions in contrast to wherever the fuck the slave came from in the first place.

    If international waters suddenly magic’ed slavery in to existence: we’d already be seeing it aboard oil rigs and fishing boats.

    Seasteading changes nothing about any of this. It’s bullshit hand wringing as an excuse to demonize the unknown. It’s pointless fearmongering.

    The economic conditions which made slavery so horrible were specific to the colonization/farming of american natural resources and the brittish empire.

    I see no reason why the existence of human trafficking or brothels becomes any more horrible because it is suddenly happening on ships instead of under 3rd world bannana republics.

    How about a reality check?

    ->Seasteading is yachts on the cheap with some sustainability thrown in.

    It’s not revolutionary except in that it will become more accessible for everyone.

    Economic impacts: increase in shipping, (over)fishing, and living space will drive down the cost of imported goods, seafood, and housing/real estate.

    It’s no more of a breakwater in libertarian idealism than the invention of boats, because that’s essentially what it is: boats.

    I wish people would quit slandering the notion with fantastic bullshit and stay focused on the economics, business plans, and engineering.

    We have 75% of the earth’s real estate up for grabs first come first serve and here we are counting chickens and postulizing about ridiculous & moot scenerios of no relevence to the subject at hand.

    Stay Focused on building your houseboats/seasteads. These types of day-dreams draw credibility away from TSI and make funding of the TSI business park less and less likely.

    Or don’t. I don’t even care, but have no illusions about the importance of the discussion: nonexistant.

    You’ll have to forgive this wet blanket: I’m allergic to non-sense and wannabe dictators.

    Control freaks and heros didn’t live long in the wild wild west.

    #11646
    Profile photo of DrMandible
    DrMandible
    Participant

    Tusavision,

    Nice tirade but I’m not sure how it related to my text that you quoted. If you think international waters are just some lawless frontier, you’re wrong. International maritime law dictates that no person or state may claim territory in international waters.

    Accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICJ) is hardly dictatorship. It’s a first step towards legitimacy. One cannot hope to establish a nation without regard to the rest of the world; other states simply would not allow that.

    A final note, seasteading isn’t about cheap yachts with sustainability thrown in, neither is is about houseboats. Read the mission statements on the website. The hope is for series a larger scale communities with legitimate international recognition.

    And by “mandatory” I’m not talking about at gun point. I mean, if a colony doesn’t accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, it shouldn’t have any backing from TSI or any other legitimate organization. Things are mandated all the time without a gun. If you don’t have anything constructive to post, why are you here?

    #11649
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    DrMandible wrote:

    Tusavision,

    Nice tirade but I’m not sure how it related to my text that you quoted. If you think international waters are just some lawless frontier, you’re wrong. International maritime law dictates that no person or state may claim territory in international waters.

    Accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICJ) is hardly dictatorship. It’s a first step towards legitimacy. One cannot hope to establish a nation without regard to the rest of the world; other states simply would not allow that.

    A final note, seasteading isn’t about cheap yachts with sustainability thrown in, neither is is about houseboats. Read the mission statements on the website. The hope is for series a larger scale communities with legitimate international recognition.

    And by “mandatory” I’m not talking about at gun point. I mean, if a colony doesn’t accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, it shouldn’t have any backing from TSI or any other legitimate organization. Things are mandated all the time without a gun. If you don’t have anything constructive to post, why are you here?

    I naturally assumed that your “mandate” was more broad in scope, as it goes without saying as that a 501(c)3 such as TSI which answers directly to the US IRS would be unable to finance a project which was flaunting “international law.”

    I even said as much in my post.

    How my post is anything other than constructive I have no idea. Calling the question is the only way to get anything accomplished in a committee, and I thought my post was a well constructed “open and shut case” for why slavery isn’t a topic we should be concerned about.

    Should I divide up my posts in to sections so there’s no opportunity for confusion on where I draw the line between responding to a quote and participating in a discussion? Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the quoted author to not wear the shoe if it doesn’t fit?

    In any case: the fact that you were vague in scope of your “mandate” makes my post perfectly on topic as opportunity for confusion existed.

    Oh wait. You’re seriousLet me laugh even harder.

    I’m not a troll… I’m you!

    #11650
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    DrMandible wrote:

    A final note, seasteading isn’t about cheap yachts with sustainability thrown in, neither is is about houseboats. Read the mission statements on the website. The hope is for series a larger scale communities with legitimate international recognition.

    I’m not going to debate semantics with you.

    TSI’s vision for the future is a floating business park by any other name. The difference between commercial property and residential is a lack of residency and the exchange of money. Since it only meets half the criteria: should I make up a word and call it a “storeboat” or communicate like a human? It’s really big so maybe I should call it a mansionboat?

    If you want to know what happens to unclaimed territory with no military to speak of: pick up a history book. This discussion is completely irrelevent in regards to TSI’s floating business park because it’s going to be flying a flag and paying taxes to one of the governments where slavery is already illegal. The only way to get out of paying taxes or flying a flag is to build a small enough, cheap enough house boat that no one cares enough about it to try to tax or seize it.

    That’s the only version of seasteading where this question of slavery is even a potential issue.

    “International Law” and libertarian haven’s are mutually exclusive. Maybe all of us seasteaders should start flying flags on this forum? We can have

    Blue Flags with a picture of an oil rig and the letters ICJ

    and

    Red Flags with a picture of a house boat with the letter A

    Since these two contrasting versions of the word “seastead” are flying around causing confusion: we can “represent” like a bunch of gang members. We’ll have a race to reality and see which accomplishes self-sufficiency first.

    The alternative is the two seasteading strategies draw a line down the middle of the vocabulary in this divorce: someone get’s to keep the house(“seasteading”) and the other has to move out and get an apartment.(“houseboat frontiering”) Since the judge of these forums flys Blue colors: it’ll probably be the houseboats getting the aparment, but accomodations should be made before someone enterprising decides to make oceantiering.org to compete with TSI for Peter Thiel’s money.

    Oh wait. You’re seriousLet me laugh even harder.

    I’m not a troll… I’m you!

    #11698
    Profile photo of DrMandible
    DrMandible
    Participant

    Tusavision,

    You still fail to understand the concept. You recognize that TSI is a §501(c)(3) then, in the same post, talk about its profit motive. A §501(c)(3) is a non-profit organization. If people want to go an have a business at sea that’s great, but it’s not seasteading. Again, I urge you to read their mission statement. TSI is about promoting experimental forms of sovereign governments. It is actively looking for ways to escape national laws.

    As for the unclaimed territory and history thing, I actually am a historian. That’s why I know how essential it is for the seasteads to be recognizes under international law before they are established. International law is not incompatible with libertarian havens. They may disagree with the laws and hope for different power structures to replace them, but they can still recognize the law’s necessity.

    Lastly, there is no definite decision that TSI will fly flags of convenience yet. Flags of convenience are a deeply imperfect solution that, no matter how “convenient”, still leave the seastead under the sovereign rule of a foreign national government. If you think libertarian havens are incompatible with international law, try national law. International law is focused primarily towards maintaining peace. National law is focused mainly on centralizing power to the national government. THAT is what’s incompatible with libertarianism, not international peace policies.

    #11777
    Profile photo of elspru
    elspru
    Participant

    DrMandible wrote:

    Tusavision,

    Nice tirade but I’m not sure how it related to my text that you quoted. If you think international waters are just some lawless frontier, you’re wrong. International maritime law dictates that no person or state may claim territory in international waters.

    states have been incrementally claiming territory in international waters for as long as they’ve been around.

    now with EEZ zones they are claiming 200 miles or more.

    that used to be “international waters” yet it’s been claimed.

    Why can that be done? because it can be defended.

    So who can make a territory claim? Any that can defend their territory.

    Accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICJ) is hardly dictatorship. It’s a first step towards legitimacy. One cannot hope to establish a nation without regard to the rest of the world; other states simply would not allow that.

    it’s a step towards the NWO.

    for instance I completely disagree with criminality.

    I don’t believe in criminals, I think judicial punishments are just sadomasochism.

    What I do believe in is nature.

    No where in nature are beings detained or punished.

    Yes beings are killed for food and territory,

    typically the sick and stupid,

    that is natural.

    The only thing approximating punishments,

    would be karmic-balancing.

    where buyers pay for products,

    by producing them.

    so if you buy product “punishiment through imprisonment of someone”,

    then you will pay by “being punishmed through imprisonment”.

    And by “mandatory” I’m not talking about at gun point. I mean, if a colony doesn’t accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, it shouldn’t have any backing from TSI or any other legitimate organization. Things are mandated all the time without a gun. If you don’t have anything constructive to post, why are you here?

    Er, if you look up the word Mandatory.

    1. Law.
      1. An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
      2. A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another without payment.

    hate to break to you,

    but people don’t do stuff for free.

    people only do things if they think it’s optimal for their thrival.

    sure maybe when you’re threatening people with punishment,

    and they do something to escape that punishment,

    you feel that you got something for free.

    But that person feels like they escaped punishment.

    and assuming karma reciprocates, as it always does,

    you’ll get threatened with punishment,

    and you’ll have to do something “for free”.

    so it all comes right back.

    So please, open your eyes,

    and see the real world.

    Wake up and embrace nature.

    calm aware desire choice love express intuit move

    #12025
    Profile photo of Matt
    Matt
    Participant

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/sep/30/slavery-trawlers-europe

    It’s even a cliché being enslaved into the hull of a probably Chinese trawler. However this bleeding heart “exposé” gives us a good example of how some traditional business ventures work outside the law on the open ocean, and more importantly how vessels and populations are already living free from the land (serviced by other vessels).

    So:

    Slavery in the High Seas has always existed and still exists.

    Grey areas I’m afraid to admitt, also exist: What’s exploitation for a European cameraman, might be a otherwise missing full belly in the mind of an overworked but somehow compensated laborer. The only way to test this is by asking them when free of coercive forces.

    This is not a fetiche or a matter to be taken lightly. If a place in the ocean is created when anyone can set shop, hordes of migrants looking for a better life will show up and these grey areas will arise. Remember the now extinct cliché of Hong Kong “explotees” making suits in an hour? I expect a similar situation to happen. That’s what I mean by the unsuspected but coming alliance between what I call “intellectual seasteaders” and people actually doing it now one way or another, and the future masses of a very new kind of boat people.

    Slavery, if contractual, in itself is not worse than other tolerated human relationships. While I’m.. hehe, (< --that was a nervous giggle) very far from advocating slavery, I advocate taking each subject each topic with a fresh mind and a clear slate free from any previous preconceptions - if we are to do what we say we want to do.

    #12333
    Profile photo of
    Anonymous

    Slavery is one of oldest things that nations agree should not be on the seas, even on the high seas.

    Brothels would be a gray area, but outright slavery and being a source of drugs entering into the US or europe is two of the quickest ways to get squashed quickly.

    #16017
    Profile photo of chadsims
    chadsims
    Participant

    Now I’ve got an interesting proposition…

    Indentured Survitude. Someone owes X debt to someone else. Where their sea stead came from they where allowed to get Indentured servitude to get their debt repaid. That seastead shows up at your sea steading group… What do you do? The man who is doing the labor is paying back a debt that he/she brought down on themselves for some reason, it isn’t slavery but close.

    Me, I would consider Indentured survitude in the event a criminal causes harm to a family, to repay it, (sort of like comunity service) the criminal would have to spend an hour a day working for that family for a court apointed amount of time. But outright pure indentured survitude? I’m not sure what I would want done. I’d probably let it slide IF the indentured party can’t proved he was cheated, his work isn’t getting fair value (So as to keep him from paying off his debts) or he wasn’t informed of the possibilty that he might end up indentured if he failed to furfil the bargain.

    What do you think SeaSteaders?

    ‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown

    #16029
    Profile photo of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant
    chadsims wrote:

    Now I’ve got an interesting proposition…

    Indentured Survitude. Someone owes X debt to someone else. Where their sea stead came from they where allowed to get Indentured servitude to get their debt repaid. That seastead shows up at your sea steading group… What do you do? The man who is doing the labor is paying back a debt that he/she brought down on themselves for some reason, it isn’t slavery but close.

    Me, I would consider Indentured survitude in the event a criminal causes harm to a family, to repay it, (sort of like comunity service) the criminal would have to spend an hour a day working for that family for a court apointed amount of time. But outright pure indentured survitude? I’m not sure what I would want done. I’d probably let it slide IF the indentured party can’t proved he was cheated, his work isn’t getting fair value (So as to keep him from paying off his debts) or he wasn’t informed of the possibilty that he might end up indentured if he failed to furfil the bargain.

    What do you think SeaSteaders?

    ‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown

    Just fly the US Flag. Indentured Servitude is alive and well in the student loan industry.

    But in all seriousness, this is just one more example of how there is a semantics issue causing confusion. Houseboats would do well to avoid the idea of debt entirely. In a Chomsky-typical anarchy, there wouldn’t be a structure of enforcement other than “debt collection”.

    In the USA, “indentured servitude” is an antiquated model in light of the strangle-hold the IRS has put on employment.

    Engaging in “commerce” in the United States places you in the jurisdiction of the US Courts. Under this jurisdiction(Any job with a W-4) court orders for wage garnishment enforcing judgements(debts+ successful lawsuit) are highly effective.

    Indentured servitude is the equivalent of strapping someone to a table to draw blood to make sausage. You’re better off if you can “tag” the victim with a “tick” which draws blood as they travel and feed themselves. All the benefits of slavery but with fewer externalities. The victim is rarely even aware of the fence keeping them inside the “garden of eden”. Also, as a result of their ignorance and fear of the unknown, they would frequently rather wear the judicial phlebot-omatic than leave in any case.

    This would be even easier on an oil rig business park because the fence would be more difficult to escape without a land-bridge, and the means of enforcement and control would be easier to execute(revoke the lease of any business which is caught hiring a “fugitive” without collecting garnishments).

    Frankly, the more I think about “oil stead business parks”, the more they seem like a nightmarish plutocrats wet dream. The means of control which enable political machines would be easier to implement than ever, and thousands of years of labor protection precedent would be wiped clean allowing all the “old tricks” to make a comeback like they were new again. I would encourage all “employees” of such a floating casino/brothel to unionize immediately and kill that baby in the cradle. Unfortunately, Mexican refugees are particularly vulnerable due to their shitty options and would likely topple easily in the face of “Scabs” and union-busting practices.

    Even supposing the 501(c)3 landlord buffers this inevitability, it would be very difficult for the board of directors/trustees W/E from being infiltrated/influenced by business interests in an echo chamber of money.

    The image that comes to my mind is the fall of Caesar and the rise of Mark Antony.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 61 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate